Just wanted to provide a useful link on the topic of leadership. The US army publishes its doctrine for free and updates it somewhat regularly:

https://talent.army.mil/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/ARN20039_...

The doctrine is a no-nonsense, no-fluff document based on 200+ years of military tradition where the effectiveness of the leadership is actually life and death. Definitely worth a read if you are interested in leadership.

▲

TheOccasionalWr 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm pretty sure software development of a website doesn't translate to a life and death situation that US army is dealing with. If anything it's why there is so many managers who think this works as if we are solving lives so they have to be strict and we all have to be strict and everyone needs to have their story points updated. The reason why most people went into software development is because they like building stuff so you have to inspire that - it's quite different to why people join US army.

My 2 cents on the actual manager philosophy is that it depends on the organization and the personal and cultural differences of the team members, some people like leaders, some people like servants and some like equality. At the end of the day everyone has to be aware they do work for the business and why they do stuff. The manager has to make that aware and inspire people.

Team topologies Shapeup Sooner Safer Happier

I think those fit most companies.

▲

positron26 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because of the Ukraine conflict, the phrase "mission command" came to my attention. It's about C2 rather than leadership but another one of those gems we might filter out in our "Bay Area" (you're all terminally online Europeans / teenagers jk) bubble.

The idea of mission command is pretty simple. If you see an incidental opportunity that will contribute to the big picture and pursuing it won't compromise the objective of your orders, take it. IIRC they call it something like "scoped initiative."

If you see an incidental opportunity that you can't take because it would compromise your local objective, you escalate. Up the chain, in the larger scope, that incidental opportunity that would compromise the objective of the smaller unit may be addressable using some available resources of the bigger unit.

It works by deduction and beautifully because you get the best of both individual initiative and large-scale coordination. It's an example where from-first-principle CS and pragmatic emergent systems resonate because it's near a morally true optimum.

In the context of OP, knowing the objective of your larger 1-2 organization levels is all the transparency that is every necessary. Neurons aren't smart. Information flows in a network are smart. Don't trust people who start performing and asking for transparency because ninety-nine times out of ten, they can't do better with what they ask for but will make everyone else do worse by breaking the cohesion.

And finally I read OP. It's a vapid feel-good long-form tweet that is nothing compared to the comment section.

	▲	cracki 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> ninety-nine times out of ten that gave me a chuckle

▲

adverbly 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> no-nonsense, no-fluff document

> Links ~100 pages pdf

> US army

Yeah that checks out...

I kid. Thanks for the share though!

▲

AndrewKemendo 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

As a multiple time ground force commander both in Iraq and stateside for CI operations, I can firmly state that there is literally zero to be learned about leadership from corporate or political worlds.

When I left the USG because it’s fundamentally corrupt, I went into private business thinking there were technical/business leaders that had pro-social incentives, and their heads screwed on.

Man was I wrong.

The US military has by far the best, all encompassing, most focused and persistently updating leadership development and it’s STILL absolutely garbage.

There’s ZERO, and actually most likely negative, incentives to think about and apply ethics in business and politics, because at the end of the day the most ruthless will win in the long run.

▲

lostlogin 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It sounds like you have been burnt, badly.

There is surely a business out there that does fit your world view, though the pay and conditions might not.

In my view, the need for growth at any cost is toxic and leads to all sorts of horrible behaviours.

▲

AndrewKemendo 3 hours ago | parent [-]

There are no good organizations, only ones that aren’t completely corrupt yet. Consider that to start and maintain an organization takes significant capital and energy expenditures upfront, which means you need to fund them from somewhere and ask sources of funding are corrupted. Consider: there are no long lasting egalitarian, distributed power, grassroots organizations that can compete at a level of social influence that can overcome or resist the existing power structure.

I’ve looked at every possible organization that could theoretically fit including; MSF a.k.a. doctors without borders, swords to plowshares, goodwill industries (who employ significant numbers of disabled people for sub min wages while the CEO makes 3M+), Mondragon etc… and they all have exactly the same fucked up incentives

why? because there is no way to survive as a structure, if your org is made up of people who want to eat and don’t want to be a monk.

unless your organization is the lead maximalist resource dominator you will be overrun by some organization with no ethics

Ultimately it comes down to the fact that people have to trade physical and mental work for money to survive. So there is no alternative to do the “right thing” without also risking your own safety and stability in your chosen society. 99.99999% of people are completely unwilling to risk their life on behalf of any particular philosophy - if only because those people don’t feel strongly enough about any particular philosophy to actually put themselves on the line for it.

So whoever has the most money, has the ability to get the most people to work for their goals.

Unfortunately the people with all the money/power do not care about anything other than growing their own personal power

▲

lostlogin 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> why? because there is no way to survive as a structure, if your org is made up of people who want to eat and don’t want to be a monk.

The worse offenders in terms of corrupting power structures seem to be religious organisations, so being a monk is out too.

That power eventually corrupts shouldn’t rule out an organisation, but if it does, start your own and keep it to one employee.

▲

alwa 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I’d be curious what you identified as the shortcomings of e.g. MSF or Mondragon. I might throw semi-decentralized social ventures like the IFRC in the mix there too: that emblem alone sure carries an almost-talismanic degree of social weight, seemingly worldwide, I think in large part because they’re foresworn from swinging around their influence outside of their lane.

And I mean… “don’t want to live like a monk” seems like a telling qualifier: the whole monastic lifestyle seems pretty widespread and enduring across cultures and through time… is the humbler mode of religious devotion an example of what you’re looking for?

In any case you’ve clearly thought deeply and widely about this question—I’d be interested to read your thoughts if you end up collecting them somewhere!

	▲	AndrewKemendo 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I’m simply acknowledging that only a tiny fraction of any group will find themselves devoted to the group in the “monastic” way of self erasure

▲

sa46 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's quite a strong claim. I disagree. Military leadership, like business leadership, is imperfect. Both vary based on individuals, the operating environment, and culture.